Charles and Race Theory 2 by Waistline2 27 May 2002 16:00 UTC Melvin,
The shortest answer to all you say in these many, many posts is that "race" is a historical category. Basically, my answers will focus on that. You are wrong when you assert, argue, assume, insist, write at length, that race is only a biological and not a historical category. It is a historical category masquerading as a biological category. Charles >CB: Yes, your specific interpretation of Marxism may prohibit you, but not all >interpretations of Marxism, >including Marx's own interpretation of Marxism do not >prohibit Marxists from speaking of race as an >authentic concept of a Bolshevik >strategist and tactician. As I have pointed out to you several times, in >_Capital_ >he gives a specific strategic and tactical pronouncement using race as an authentic >concept; >Labor in white skin will not be free while labor in Black skin in branded. > >You have not responded to this. It is a devastating critique of your claim that race >is not an authentic >concept for Marxism. >Respond to this: MARX HIMSELF USES RACE AS AN AUTHENTIC CONCEPT CRITICAL TO THE >>AMERICAN WORKNG CLASS STRUGGLE AND STRATEGY. Reply Marx uses the word â€*nigger†and this does not make him a racialist or chauvinist. Marx use of the words â€*Negro race†does not create a theory of race. In fact, Marx use of the words Negro race is equivalent to the words African American people as a historically evolved people and is not an â€*authentic concept†of race. ^^^^^^^^ CB: If you are saying that Marx is just using "Negro" as slang, but not in a scientific or serious sense in the passage you quoted or the one's I quoted, then I disagree with you. Marx is serious when he recognizes that the working masses in the U.S. and elsewhere are divided based on skin color ,which equals race. He is serious and empirically accurate. It is true that Marx did not have the benefit of the refutations of the biological concept of race that came after his lifetime. But Marx is rigorous enough to restrict himself to race as a historical and not biological category. This is what I have said all along on this thread, and what you ignore and misrepresent. Race is a valid historical category, and a valid historical materialist category. It is an aggravated form of nationality. You do not seem to cognize that in what I say. You keep ignoring it and attributing to me something I am not saying. The shortest answer to all you say is that "race" is a historical category. Basically, my answers will focus on that. You are wrong when you assert, argue, assume, insist, write at length, that race is only a biological and not a historical category. It is a historical category masquerading as a biological category. ^^^^^^^^ The issue before us is the framing of the â€*Negro Question†as a modern national colonial question not simply â€*Labor in white skin will not be free while labor in Black skin in branded,†â€" as was the case prior to 1865. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Do you agree that for Marxists, a modern national colonial question is a derivative of Marx and Engels's discussion of national questions, as when they say "Workers of all Countries , Unite " ? Or do Marx and Engels teach us nothing about the national colonial question, and it just pops up totally new after their lifetimes ? ^^^^^^^ â€*MARX HIMSELF USES (The words Negro) RACE AS AN AUTHENTIC CONCEPT CRITICAL TO THE AMERICAN WORKNG CLASS STRUGGLE AND STRATEGY before the rise of modern imperialism and in the context of latifundia slavery. Nowhere does Marx use race as an authentic concept. Repeat: No where does Marx use race as an authentic concept. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: Are you saying that there _is_ an "authentic" concept of "race" in analysis of the latifundia slavery ? Or not ? If not, then the difference with Marx is not that he is discussing latifundia slavery as opposed to modern imperialism, but that there just isn't any "authentic" concept of race whether in relation to latifundia slavery or modern imperialism. Again , race is an authentic historical category both in relation to capitalist slavery and post slavery capitalism. It is valid not only with respect to the U.S. with Black and Red people , but it is global in relation to the many peoples of Asia . It operated in the consciousnesses of U.S. workers who were willing to fight wars in Korea and Viet Nam, et al. ^^^^^^^^ Where Marx uses the words â€*Negro race†and Eric Foner uses the words â€*racial harmony†radically different conceptions of reality are being expressed. Marx us of the words â€*Negro Race†means the class of citizens that were slaves in the Southern portion of America. ^^^^^^^^ CB: You are going to have to argue this. You can't prove by assertion that when Marx uses "Negro" he doesn't mean race or , as you put it, "authentic" race. Eric Fonerâ€*s use of the words â€*racial harmony†means all people who are not white, and is devoid of class as is his â€*Executive summary,†which you choose to publish because that is your particular view. â€*Negro race†in the hands of Marx means the class of slaves. Eric Foner and the Marxist of the concept of race mean all people on earth who are not white. That is the difference. In Marx hand we have a word imbued with class content; in Fonerâ€*s petty bourgeois hands, we have a word devoid of class and history. Foner specifically means all people who are not white or what he calls a racial minority. ^^^^^^^^ CB: I don't agree that Foner's discussion is devoid of class and history. I can't quite say or not whether I agree with his whole theory, but it is substantially correct compared with most historians' views. His theory is good enough that his factual discussion is of interest. ^^^^^^^ I am attacking your class less presentation called â€*racial harmony,†which you claim is Marxism and an authentic concept of race. Here is what you sent to Marxline for consideration: >In the 19th century, the abolitionist movement argued for a purely civic >understanding of American >identity, insisting that genuine freedom meant civic >equality. In the era of Reconstruction, American >society formally embraced these >principles. But this experiment in interracial democracy lasted only a >little more >than a decade. By the early 20th century, a new system of racial subordination had >been >established in the South, effectively nullifying the Fourteenth and Fifteenth >Amendments, while in the >North blacks were denied access to industrial employment. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: There is no reference to "racial harmony" . Please point to the words "racial harmony" in what you quote . Furthermore, he refers to "formally embraced these principles" , which implies that they were not substantively embraced, i.e. that there was not real "interracial democracy". Please explain this evident misstatement on your part. This is a glaring misstatement on your part. There's the text right there. It doesn't say what you say it says. ^^^^^^^^^ This is the intellectual posture of the petty bourgeois intellectual. Let us examine your authentic concept of race, based on the material you provided Marxline. Foner states: the context of latifundia slavery. â€*In the era of Reconstruction, American society formally embraced these principles. . . this experiment in interracial democracy lasted only a little more than a decade.†The above statement is political fakery and an affront to the thousands of solider who died on the battlefield overthrowing the slave power. Marxist hold such classless formulation in contempt and label them for what they are â€" the striving of the petty bourgeoisie as an expression of material conditions of existence outside the proletariatâ€*s motion as a class and â€*below†the bourgeoisie as a class. ^^^^^^^^ CB: I believe your statement here is intellectual fakery or fallacy or fricasse. ^^^^^^^^ The abolition of slavery was a social revolution without a corresponding or preceding economic revolution in the Southâ€*s means of production. That is, the instruments of production of the agricultural South did not advance; but the North imposed a revolution in social relations upon the South with the freeing of the slaves. In other words the revolution imposed on the South changed class relationships not so-called â€*racial relationship.†^^^^^^^^ CB: Race relations are a subcategory of class relations in capitalism. Race is a historical and economic category. ^^^^^ The emancipation was revolutionary and destroyed property worth some four billion dollars in the form of the slaves â€" proletarians in chains. The next stage of the social revolution would have to break up the plantations and parcel them out to the freemen and the landless poor whites. This would have finished the planters as a class, and such wide spread ownership of productive property would have democratized the South. The second stage of the social revolution is called Reconstruction and was not an experiment in â€*racial democracy.†The passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution gave large numbers of ex-slaves the right to vote and threw the mass of the people/class into the political arena. Thousands of Anglo-American revolutionaries from the North flooded into the South to carry out the task of smashing the political power of the landlord planter. This was class struggle and not some damn â€*experiment in racial harmony.†^^^^^^^^^ CB: There is no contradiction between working class racial harmony and working class struggle. As Marx taught, the former is a premise for success in the latter. ^^^^^^^^ Reconstruction was the second phase of an authentic social revolution imposed on class relations in the slaveholding South. With the historic honeyed mouthed liberal in the CPUSA â€" tied to capital by a thousand tiny threads, the Negro People and our working class has never had a chance to evolve a class conception of American society, due in part to what Mr. Eric Foner â€" and you Comrade Charles, call a â€*race and gender†approach to social relations. ^^^^^^^ CB: See earlier responses. That is a CLASS, race and gender approach . FOCUS ON AND REPLY TO THIS: COMRADE CHARLES IS NOT PUTTING FORTH A "RACE AND GENDER" ANALYSIS , BUT A "CLASS, RACE AND GENDER ANALYSIS. RESPOND TO THIS ONLY ^^^^^^^^^ I put forth a Marxist conception of American society that is simple and understandable by any comrade that reads these assertions. I profoundly understand your Marxist conception of race and challenge you to present evidence that indicates that someone other than â€*my brand†of Marxism have unravel social relations on the basis of the Marxist method and in conformity to Lenin, in whose tradition you claim to speak. You speak for the petty bourgeois liberal â the context of latifundia slavery. €" a section of capital, on this question. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: See my earlier responses. ^^^^^ What in fact is the second stage of the social revolution, which Lenin won under conditions that mirrored the period of Reconstruction in all its class configurations, down to the amount of railroad tracks laid? (Railroad tracks were a gauge to indicate the degree to which the â€*town†and â€*countryside†are linked into an economic unit.†In other words, national development.) ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: All for now. You are being too repetitive , and you are ignoring what I am actually saying. Because you keep repeating the same things at length, and are largely carrying on a conversation with yourself....this debate is kind of looney. I urge you to give a summary of your positions and I'll do the same. I urge you to focus on the idea that race is a valid historical concept and that race is a valid historical concept that is compatible with the concept of class and makes it more complicated. I am not giving you a race analysis but a class and race analysis. Unless you can acknowledge this or show that you at least understand that that is what I am saying, then this thread is too nutty to continue.
